We’ve been following the question of where Light Rail might cross the river south of downtown as a case study in how such decisions get made (gradually, not all at once).
Another chapter in the story was presented last week, with Commissioner Adams musing in the Tribune about how Light Rail might benefit the South Waterfront development.
As I said before, one of the dimensions of this struggle will be between the Central East side and South Waterfront wrangling over who will get proximity to the service. This one is a long way from over, but it’s fun to watch the skirmishes.
Proving that he can hold two contradictory ideas in his head at the same time, I’m pretty sure that Sam will vote sometime in June for an east-side streetcar alignment that will assume the light rail bridge will be built at Caruthers, where Streetcar can use it to get back to PSU. That’s a pretty non-committal vote at this point, because there won’t be enough dollars to get Streetcar all the way to OMSI in one bite (for that matter there aren’t enough dollars to get Milwaukie Light Rail very far at all yet). So we can watch this one play out for a while.
33 responses to “Watching it Unfold”
Is there any reason we can’t have both? Let North Macadam have the Milwaukie line across bridge farther south and bring the streetcar across the Hawthorne. Light rail through the Macadam area would be even better when (if) the Barbur line runs through there. I’ve wondered before if the Streetcar alone was big enough to handle this high density development.
My question is won’t this compete with the Lake Oswego Streetcar line?
What does AORTA think of this idea? Does it give any more merit to bringing the N/S Yellow line to the west side, or would a Barbur alignment be good enough to serve the area? (By the way, my guess is this will increase travel time for N/S through riders)
I have a hard time containing my outrage at the treatment of the folks in Brooklyn Neighborhood and Milwaukie in the light rail discussion. These were the people who wanted light rail. Lobbied for the Caruthers Crossing bridge at OMSI and pused to keep light rail to Clackamas County alive as an option when everyone else, including the Clackamas County Commission and Trimet, had given up on it.
Now it looks like all the promises made that the route to Milwaukie was an integral part of the South Corridor plan will be betrayed. Its not surprising, but it ought to make clear to any other group of citizens not to compromise. They should have opposed the south corridor plan as unacceptable. They didn’t. And now they will be rewarded for their reasonableness with nothing.
To call the suggestion of moving light rail south a betrayal is really too weak.
The problem with the South Corridor project is not the downtown Mall alignment, it is that the entire project makes no transportation sense. Its a pasted together political decision whose only purpose is get the federal money.
So the downtown business community gets a redesigned transit mall, Clackamas County gets a light rail that connects to their main shopping center – with no way for people to get to any of the jobs in the surrounding area because they would scuttle the project if they didn’t get their way. The folks in Souheast Portland and Milwaukie get nothing because they are too reasonable to insist on anything more than empty promises.
Instead of promoting walkable neighborhoods it is promoting park and rides on I-205. Even the station areas near existing commercial areas have been designed to accomodate parking rather than building the local neighborhoods.
In addition, almost none of the trips originating along the new alignment go downtown. But they are counting the additional trips created by the increased frequency along the existing east side light rail as benefits of the investment on I-205.
I-205 is really the ultimate corruption of transportation planning for political accomodation. Unlike the West Side and Interstate Max lines, there isn’t going to be much excitement when this is done – except with the fancy new transit mall. It would not surprise me if it is the last light rail project the region is able to build for a very long time.
It seems like we have a few different ideas here.
I think the ‘big picture’ idea is to have LRT down McLoughlin and Barbur, and Streetcar covering the Hwy 43 corridor in between.
Ross, if LRT crossed near the Ross Island Bridge to get a little deeper into South Waterfront, wouldn’t that still serve Brooklyn?
And yes, Streetcar could cross at Hawthorne, it’s just slightly less optimal (more out of direction travel) than Caruthers.
“The problem with the South Corridor project is not the downtown Mall alignment, it is that the entire project makes no transportation sense. Its a pasted together political decision whose only purpose is get the federal money.”
Go figure. Tri-met is in essence just a branch of the political arm. It’s actions are not based on market need, personal desire, but an obfuscation of those things wrought with compromise.
Eventually something will be built, because something HAS to be built.
As for a certain person mentioning in the Portland Tribune that the south waterfront HAS to have transit and that 30-40% of the trips MUST be transit and not cars or SOVs is some serious high wishes.
One must remember that as income goes up the likelihood that someone will use transit falls dramatically. With the cost of a condo ranging between 300,000 and 4 million (Just check out the johnross or other towers down there) dollars I really don’t see that many actual “customers” using the transit. Unless they are FORCED to use it because of a lack of roadways. The tramway I can see, if doctors and nurses live there yes. The streetcar with it’s increasing noise level, rackety wheels, and other issues such as bums and other vagrants I seriously doubt, would even be willing to bet on it, that people in the south waterfront won’t be using it as often as would be possible if a more mixed income community where to exist.
If the streetcar actually charges I see very little usage at all from the south waterfront.
I’m hoping I am horribly wrong and somehow these extremely high income people use it, but I’m not holding my breath.
I don’t know, in during the commute hours, the streetcar from/to northwest is filled primarily with business people in suits, as well as normal people going to work. Since many of them look like they own their own homes in NW, I don’t see much of a difference in why SOWA residents wouldn’t ride.
Ross Williams wrote:
So the downtown business community gets a redesigned transit mall, Clackamas County gets a light rail that connects to their main shopping center – with no way for people to get to any of the jobs in the surrounding area because they would scuttle the project if they didn’t get their way.
Ross, the Green Line intersects with major east-west bus lines at nearly every new station along I-205. This shifts transfers that would have occurred on slow moving 82nd ave. buses to higher-speed rail. How does that constitute “with no way for people to get to any of the jobs in the surrounding area”?
Instead of promoting walkable neighborhoods it is promoting park and rides on I-205. Even the station areas near existing commercial areas have been designed to accomodate parking rather than building the local neighborhoods.
I think the I-205 freeway itself is more of a barrier to “walkable neighborhoods” than the addition of rail to the area corridor will be.
In addition, almost none of the trips originating along the new alignment go downtown.
TriMet’s estimates are that “35 percent of riders would be traveling to destinations within the I-205 corridor.” Presumably the rest would transfer to east-west buses or would head east toward Gresham or West toward downtown along the existing alignment. The Blue Line corridor serves a number of non-downtown destinations, so it is still useful for Green Line trains to serve a portion of that corridor.
But they are counting the additional trips created by the increased frequency along the existing east side light rail as benefits of the investment on I-205.
Are they? On their web site the ridership claims are based solely on the I-205 corridor: “Ridership on the I-205 MAX line between Gateway and Clackamas Town Center is projected to reach 38,000 daily trips by 2025.”
I-205 is really the ultimate corruption of transportation planning for political accomodation.
Is it? Or is it an obvious choice since an existing transitway ROW was constructed decades ago? Even AORTA, which has serious concerns about the Mall portion of the project, is not opposed to the I-205 portion.
Unlike the West Side and Interstate Max lines, there isn’t going to be much excitement when this is done – except with the fancy new transit mall.
I don’t care if people are particularly excited by the I-205 segment when it opens. The I-84 segment of the Blue Line isn’t particularly exciting, yet it provides a significant portion of boardings and is basically the spine of the system.
The I-205 portion is going to be very utilitarian, just like I-84. The real questions are: Will it improve ridership? Will it improve travel times and quality of service for a majority of current riders? Will it provide potential capacity that can be scaled up as transit usage increases?
“Excited” doesn’t need to be much of a component of that, unless you mean that a working mother with a job at Clackamas Town Center can now get to her home in Gresham 15 minutes faster after work.
– Bob R.
“think the ‘big picture’ idea is to have LRT down McLoughlin and Barbur”
I think it is a mistake to look at light rail service as a continuous path. Its actually a series of station areas.
The problems associated with crossing below Ross Island are that you have a difficult time providing stations that serve a significant part of Brooklyn. If you look at the current approved plans for south-north, there is no way a river crossing south of Ross Island provides anything remotely like the level of service promised.
This is a classic case of disinvesting from established neighborhoods to serve new development.
Ross wrote: The problems associated with crossing below Ross Island are that you have a difficult time providing stations that serve a significant part of Brooklyn. If you look at the current approved plans for south-north, there is no way a river crossing south of Ross Island provides anything remotely like the level of service promised.
This is a classic case of disinvesting from established neighborhoods to serve new development.
Ross – On this much we certainly agree.
– Bob R.
“One must remember that as income goes up the likelihood that someone will use transit falls dramatically.”
Of course, one must also remember that such statistics are culled from a national social configuration that does not provide the affluent with consistently-high-quality transit that would be attractive for them to ride. My personal belief is that of course the affluent do not ride in nearly as great numbers as the poor, since only the most altruistic of the affluent (of whom there are very few) lead a lifestyle whereby they are transit dependent. For those who are not (i.e. the 99.999% of the affluent) and who have a choice, of course they will choose their luxury car over the largely-poor transit that is almost solely available to them in the vast majority of the country. However, I would be interested to see the results of a study showing transit usage by the affluent where high-quality service is directly available. The problem with conducting such a study is that there are very few situations where that is the case. With the Portland Streetcar, the opportunity exists to create such a situation, and I believe that it will result in ridership versus income level that exceeds the norm considerably.
The biggest strikes against the streetcar are the speed, frequency (it MUST get down to 10 minute headways to be competetive), and the occasional vagrant (although in my experience this is a relative rarity). One cannot underestimate the importance of its fashionability, which is a key factor in many of the non-speculative purchases in the Pearl and “SoWa”. In sum, I believe that the characteristics of SoWa, the Pearl, and the streetcar are unique enough as to render the relevance of statistics of income v. ridership as being highly-marginal, since such statistics are the result of significantly different circumstances.
Also, regarding the perpetual plight of the light-rail-less Brooklyn and Milwaukee ‘hoods: let us not forget to mention the communities of Sellwood and Moreland (both West- and East-), for whom light rail is just as desirable. Witness editorials in the past several issues of the Bee.
There is no need to build the Caruthers Bridge until a Powell-Foster MAX line is built in the future when MAX will be in a subway.
In the meantime, The Yellow Line should not take a slow detour downtown but should extend south on the eastside, The South Waterfront District should be served with an improved #35 bus and the Portland Streetcar and trolleybuses should be used for mall and eastside circulator service.
Less effort should be expended promoting a particular mode and more on supporting the use of the appropriate mode for the job.
? The light rail mode is good for regional high capacity service but is a lousy downtown circulator.
? The streetcar mode is good as a downtown circulator on light traffic streets and can also be used for limited regional service where Light rail is not practical.
? The trolley bus mode excels as a downtown circulator because it is quiet and pollution-free like streetcars but is much more maneuverable in heavy traffic.
Let the mode fit the job and we will get a lot more bang for the buck.
This shifts transfers that would have occurred on slow moving 82nd ave. buses to higher-speed rail.
I-205 is ten blocks east of the destinations those 82nd Avenus buses serve. Let’s hope the frequency of service on 82nd isn’t reduced because there are a handful of places where there are light rail stops ten blocks away on I-205.
Yes, the person who works are Clackamas Town Center gets good service, as does the person who shops there. But if they want to seek work at most of the surrounding businesses there are minimal sidewalks, large rivers of traffic and seas of parking lots to cross with few if any pedestrian accomodations. And there is very little evidence that Clackamas County is likely to invest in those in the future. (Although that would change if Lynn Peterson is elected this fall.)
Even AORTA, which has serious concerns about the Mall portion of the project, is not opposed to the I-205 portion.
Since when is AORTA the final authority? Almost no one opposed the I-205 political accomodation, not even the folks in Brooklyn. The question I was raising is whether that was a good decision.
TriMet’s estimates are that “35 percent of riders would be traveling to destinations within the I-205 corridor.”
I am working from memory and I think you are misreading what that statement means. But I don’t really have time to go back over it again. The first phase on I-205 is a done deal – the second phase to Milwaukie ought to be as well.
Ross wrote: “Let’s hope the frequency of service on 82nd isn’t reduced because there are a handful of places where there are light rail stops ten blocks away on I-205.”
Ross –
In the comments/responses section of the South Corridor Project DEIS, there is an indirect reference to this issue:
The above response does not address whether 82nd ave service hours will be reduced, but it does show that TriMet and Metro do recognize that this corridor will remain important.
Another comment/response addresses the specific issue of reduced bus service after light rail opens, but not for the specific 82nd ave line:
Incidentally, there is a Citizens Advisory Committee meeting this Thursday which would be a good opportunity to ask questions about issues such as the ones you raise.
For info on the I-205 CAC meeting, click:
http://www.trimet.org/meetings/i-205/index.htm
– Bob R.
On the issue of affluence and ridership, I would note that our region for some time has had a large percentage of “choice riders”, people who have the means to choose other modes, but elect to ride transit.
This is particularly true with the Streetcar. I suspect that many people are buying condos in SoWa BECAUSE of the Streetcar and this helps drive the prices higher there. This can be confirmed from the fact that for the extension from Gibbs to Lowell, the developers in the area have signed up for a local improvement district that covers about half of the capital costs!
And I’m fully in support of getting to 10 minute headways. Tell City Council you want it. It’s just a question of operating funds.
Wasn’t the river crossing choice and North Macadam–oops, South Waterfront–vs OMSI a big issue the last time they tried to do this? As for the whole MAX-thru-Central Eastside idea, I’ve found an interesting idea from that time which talked about using trolley buses.
As for I-205 vs. the 72, there needs to be a survay done to see how many Line 72 riders use it to switch east/west buses or (like me) have destinations on streets that will have stations and could ride the Green Line. Oh, and we should be happy to see that, unlike Interstate MAX, it will have decent speed and even be grade-seperated.
Bob –
You raised the idea that I-205 light rail provides alternative service to 82nd. I don’t think it does for very many people. As for Line 14, I suspect it will get you to downtown quicker than light rail in any case. Which, as I recall, was one of the reasons for the limited number of trips that go all the way downtown.
Chris –
I think many people see the value in streetcar as a development tool. It provides a nice urban amenity that can attract choice riders. Its fixed in place, no one is going to move it. And it probably all but guarantees a significant level of service.
Ross –
My point about I-205 light rail providing an alternative to 82nd ave is that for anyone who will be transferring from one E-W bus line to another E-W bus line by heading N-S will be able to do so much faster and easier. Also, anyone needing to connect to Gateway-to-Gresham area service from the I-205 corridor will have superior service.
It is in improving these suburb-to-suburb connections that I see value of the proposal.
– Bob R.
Also, anyone needing to connect to Gateway-to-Gresham area service from the I-205 corridor will have superior service.
That is only partially true. I think you are missing the fact that the light rail stations are spaced wider than bus stops and are further from the destination points people need to get to and the station areas are not very pedestrian friendly.
transferring from one E-W bus line to another E-W bus line by heading N-S
Why would someone do that? There is a reason there is no bus service on I-205 now. Just as there were good reasons for rejecting the I-205 corridor the first go around for south-north. The decision to use I-205 was largely a political decision, not a transportation decision. There is nothing wrong with that unless the politics creates a bad decision. I wonder if that isn’t what happened in this case.
Chris –
“I think many people see the value in streetcar as a development tool. It provides a nice urban amenity that can attract choice riders. Its fixed in place, no one is going to move it. And it probably all but guarantees a significant level of service”.
Ditto trolleybuses.
For every new MAX route that is proposed to be built, dozens of other worthwhile projects to alleviate auto congestion will have to be sacrificed. The federal budget simply is not a bottomless well, nor will local taxpayers happily vote for expensive projects that benefit certain neighborhoods , and leave other neighborhoods out.
Had the East and West MAX routes been built near projected costs, they would be resounding successes. These routes have provided a corridor for increased density oriented to an attractive mass transit system. But they weren’t built within budget and future ones won’t be. The present Interstate MAX line is nothing but a platinum plated bus route and extending it to Vancouver will not provide a magic cure. Clark county simpply isn’t a progressive, new urbanist region. The only part that has that hope will be the downtown/West Vancouver area.
It would be better to find a simpler, more economical alternative to the MAX, one that we can exert far greater control over to further reduce costs. Such as an anlarged Streetcar vehicle. What to do during rush hour when capacity is full? Run more vehicles. Park them the rest of the day.
Where do we need a new bridge? Connect Holgate Blvd to SW Bancroft, going over Ross Island. Do it before there is a high rise in the way. A probable western terminus would be the Benz Spring Mfg. site. Develop a new interchange with access both to Macadam and to I-5. The peregrine falcons will love a bridge, since it will be a new perch to hunt trash fish from. They love the Fremont bridge and the old electrical transmission towers along the river.
If I were the Duke, I would extend MAX to the Tram (11K jobs), then across the River and along McLaughlin as per the current alignment.
AND, I would extend the Eastside streetcar through West Clinton to Brooklyn, using the Hawthorne Bridge to get back to the westside. Streetcar is actually closer to what these communities want and need. I’d love to see Milwaukie Avenue have the streetcar that is once had. The prefered MAX alignment to Milwaukie has all the shortcomings of I-205…high capacity transit next to freeway.
Which brings me to Interstate MAX…sorry to hear it dissed, but its the best MAX in Portland, serving many and diverse neighborhoods and destinations with good travel times…14 minutes from Lombard to Rose Quarter. Did you ever ride a 5 bus? Come on. Once it gets to Vancouver…downtown V. will be 25 minutes from the RQ, 35 from Pioneer Square.
The high cost of lightrail or any reliable high capacity transit stems of the exclusive right of way costs, though its much cheaper than grade separated rail (BART). See Bob’s long discussion of this in another string. Its flexibility is its chief asset…fast when grade separated, moderate speed in exclusive ROW in arterials and slow when in mixed traffic downtown. Someday it will be in a subway, but enjoy the sunlight while you can.
I wrote, regarding one positive aspect of I-205 MAX that it facilitated “transferring from one E-W bus line to another E-W bus line by heading N-S”
Ross replied, “Why would someone do that?”
For example, anyone who lives in SE Portland, west of 82nd, such as on Holgate (#17), Powell (#9), or Division (#4) and wants to go to outer NE Portland, such as on Glisan (#25), Halsey (#77), or Burnside (MAX Blue Line).
Right now they must transfer northbound via 82nd Ave (#72) or 122nd ave (#71) or 182nd ave (#82).
There are no other frequent N-S bus lines (and the #82 is not so frequent), and the #71 and #72 often get bogged down in traffic.
Making the transfer via the Green Line will be faster and more predictable, not to mention more comfortable.
I’m not saying that such riders will be the primary beneficiaries of the Green Line, but it is the answer to your specific question.
The I-205 portion of the Green Line is not just about serving downtown. It enhances connections throughout the east side.
Unless people are prepared to remove auto lanes on 82nd or 122nd in favor of dedicated busways (at least at peak hours), the alternative is the existing dedicated ROW along I-205. (And no, before someone accuses me of it, I am NOT advocating removing lanes from 82nd ave. I _am_ advocating for I-205 MAX).
– Bob R.
(And no, before someone accuses me of it, I am NOT advocating removing lanes from 82nd ave. I _am_ advocating for I-205 MAX).
That’s OK. I would advocate it. Adding additional transit North South bus service – even on I-205 – would have made more sense than investing in I-205 MAX at this time. But I am not really opposed to I-205 MAX. I just don’t think it was the next on the list in terms of priorities and certainly not ahead of the line to Milwaukie.
The only part that has that hope will be the downtown/West Vancouver area.
While I agree with this, I also agree with Lenny that the Interstate MAX has done exactly what it was supposed to do. The unfortunate part of it is that it ate up the urban renewal money that should have been spent on locking in some of the affordable housing in the neighborhoods along it. Unfortunately that opportunity is now lost.
The prefered MAX alignment to Milwaukie has all the shortcomings of I-205…high capacity transit next to freeway.
Not really. There would only be one or two stops that aren’t closely connected to walkable parts of the region and the one in Sellwood arguable is. Moroever Milwaukie is a legitimate focus for feeder bus transfers to other parts of Clackamas County, as well as commuter rail at some point in the future. Not many peopls are going to ride Max all the way around to Clackamas Town Center and then transfer.
Besides the cost of Milwaukie MAX, now pegged at $550 miilion, according to the Trib, is that a great portion of the route goes through areas that will never be developed to residential. For about 1.5 mi of the route it goes alongside Crystal Springs park, Eastmoreland golf course and Westmoreland park. The area north of that is largely freight yard. Brooklyn is a historic neighborhood; where would you put the condos? That leaves the inner SE Industrial area, which already is so close to downtown that people could walk there; and the southernmost stretch which is proposed for mixed use. I would love to see that area developed to high rises; it has potential river views, is close to a large park, could have a small greenway on Johnson Creek, and could be part of a revitalized Milwaukie town center. The drawback is proximity to Hwy 99 and the rail corridor. Noise. So how would this promote an urban landscape? I don’t get it.
What would it cost to run MAX to Oregon City? If the Milwaukie 5.5. mile route has climbed 6% in a year, what if we wait ten more years to extend it to OC? Maybe the cost of Streetcar is rising,too, but if we can bring production here at Oregon Iron Works, maybe we can start whittling other costs down. Planning would really help–to incorporate routes when streets are being reworked.
For the money to build the Milwaukie MAX, which also requires the expensive downtown mall at another $200 million, we could have a network of interconnecting streetcar routes, probably serving four times as many potential riders and providing a focal point for intelligent development, such as is planned for the Macadam corridor. I would add the Holgate Bridge, because inevitably as the area continues to grow it will make sense. The present downtown has several; this is another downtown, now only served by the Ross Island Br.
I thought that I-205 MAX was being built precisely because it was the lowest-hanging fruit. It gives north/sorth accessibility to the system, the ROW and grading is already there, and it allows increased headways in the core I-84 segment. Also, the downtown alignment, say what you will about the details, but it does set the stage for further southern expansion of the system.
I still think the Hawthorne Bridge should carry streetcars, however. And would the Holgate Bridge then carry MAX?
Regarding the Green Line, TriMet has completed the bidding process for the new light rail cars to be used as part of that project. The new car design was unveiled yesterday at the CAC meeting.
The new cars are from Siemens, manufacturer of the current SD-660 “Type II” and “Type III” low-floor cars used by TriMet. The new car will be called (wait for it), “Type IV”.
Details are sketchy on the TriMet web site, but these vehicles appear very similar to the Siemens S70 used in Charlotte, Houston, and San Diego, but these new versions will have the operator cab at just one end. The other end, although from the outside it will appear like the operator end, will actually contain passenger space.
TriMet claims the removal of the 2nd operator cab will allow for the addition of 12 passenger seats. This is a very welcome addition, meaning that in any 2-car train, 24 passengers who would have had to stand in the current cars, will be able to find a seat in the new cars.
I am assuming these new cars will always be used in 2-car coupled sets, because most MAX lines terminate on a straight track, not a loop, requiring the operator to switch cabs. (Unless there are plans I don’t know about to put a turning loop at Clackamas Town Center, which would allow for single-car operation of the Green Line.)
An artist’s rendering can be seen here:
http://www.trimet.org/news/releases/may10type4.htm
This raises an intriguing question: Because many of the current LRVs are nearly always operated in 2-car train sets, could they be retrofitted for more passenger space by removing operator cabs? 24 seats per train may not seem like a lot, but at peak hour they would be very welcome. That would allow for 240 more seated passengers per hour on the west side (assuming 10 trains per hour per direction) plus a few additional standees, on cars that are already completely full at peak hour.
On an artistic note, I’m not sure I like how the TriMet blue semi-circle has been extended so far down into the window area. It seems to me that standees looking out the window would be forced to peer through a heavy blue tint. Perhaps the end result will make the blue area smaller.
– Bob R.
Just think if back in ’58 we had raised a million or so bucks to put tracks on the new Morrison Bridge and kept the Oregon City streetcar running to downtown. Over the years with a small upgrade here and there, we would now have light rail to Oregon City on the cheap.
I rode in way back when…wish my memories were more vivid.
so these new cars will be single-ended like a PCC? or will these be two cars semi-permanently attached?
Back in the early 1970s the first light rail in Portland was going to be between downtown Portland and Oregon City, they even had made an arrangement to reserve second-hand PCCs from Toronto until the new LRVs could arrive. The line would have run along the old PTC rail line. I’m not exactly sure why the light rail focus shifted to the Gresham line but I’d guess it was the cancelation of the Mount Hood Freeway and the need to find alternatives in that corridor.
Anyhow the goal needs to be getting MAX to Oregon City soon. Its such a major corridor.
The rail yard in Brooklyn will be redeveloped to a mixed use neighborhood at least on a portion of the site if light rail in built through it. Its almost a given.
Actually, what we should have done is not paved the streetcar tracks over–they still exist in many Portland streets. There was even a Usenet Thread about sightings of them.
As for the new MAX cars, I thought TriMet was unwilling to go with something that looked radically different than the Type 1s.
As for the new MAX cars, I thought TriMet was unwilling to go with something that looked radically different than the Type 1s.
As long as they resist the temptation to couple them to Type I – Type III’s, which would really clash!
The body style is what Siemens has been delivering to several cities lately. I suppose TriMet is going with current “off the shelf” LRVs, rather than forcing vendors to continue to make an older body style.
– Bob R.
Here is a link to the Siemens PDF on the model S70 LRV, which appears to be the basis of the new Green Line LRVs (the S70 has operator cabs at both ends, so the seating totals are fewer than the Green Line)
http://www.sts.siemens.com/DS/S70%20Houston.pdf
thought that I-205 MAX was being built precisely because it was the lowest-hanging fruit
I think more accurately it was built because the Clackamas County Commissioners wanted a line that went to Clackamas Town Center – not to Milwaukie.
Ron –
I think you are mistaking proximity to the line for proximity to the stations. It is only the latter that matters. For light rail to have its greatest impact it needs to have high quality pedestrian access. Washington County has a long way to go to finishing the west side line so that it has adequate pedestrian facilities. But it is light years ahead of unincorporated Clackamas County – especially the areas served by the I-205 light rail line.
“I think many people see the value in streetcar as a development tool. It provides a nice urban amenity that can attract choice riders. Its fixed in place, no one is going to move it. And it probably all but guarantees a significant level of service”.
-I don’t think people who are riding the streetcar are looking at it as a ‘development tool.’ They are using it because it is easy, convenient, and offers frequent service. Or wish it did…
Justin – that’s the beauty of Streetcar. It’s both a development tool AND a great transportation system.